ArticleHealth science reports2021
Measuring quality of pre-hospital traumatic shock care-development and validation of an instrument for resource-limited settings.
Article in Health science reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Measuring quality of pre-hospital traumatic shock care-development and validation of an instrument for resource-limited settings.Health science reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsImproving the quality of pre-hospital traumatic shock care, especially in low- and middle-income countries, is particularly relevant to reducing the large global burden of disease from injury. What clinical interventions represent high-quality care is an actively evolving field and often dependent on the specific injury pattern. A key component of improving the quality of care is having a consistent way to assess and measure the quality of shock care in the pre-hospital setting. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a chart abstraction instrument to measure the quality of trauma care in a resource-limited, pre-hospital emergency care setting.
methodsTraumatic shock was selected as the tracer condition. The pre-hospital quality of traumatic shock care (QTSC) instrument was developed and validated in three phases. A content development phase utilized a rapid literature review and expert consensus to yield the contents of the draft instrument. In the instrument validation phase, the QTSC instrument was created and underwent end user and content validation. A pilot-testing phase collected user feedback and performance characteristics to iteratively refine draft versions into a final instrument. Accuracy and inter- and intra-rater agreement were calculated.
resultsThe final QTSC instrument contains 10 domains of quality, each with specific criteria that determine how the domain is measured and the level of quality of care rendered. The instrument is over 90% accurate and has good inter- and intra-rater reliability when used by trained pre-hospital provider users in South Africa. Pre-hospital provider user feedback indicates the tool is easy to learn and quick to use.
conclusionWe created and validated a novel chart abstraction instrument that can reliably and accurately measure the quality of pre-hospital traumatic shock care. We provide a systematic methodology for developing and validating a quality of care tool for resource-limited care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.